Heathrow Protest

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 4 of 4 << First < 1 2 3 4

jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Nov 15 12.59pm
Quote Stuk at 27 Nov 2015 12.48pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Nov 2015 9.15am Quote matt_himself at 27 Nov 2015 7.43am The fact is hat we need more runways for business. If we do not build them, hubs such as Barajas will become increasingly used by the likes of IAG instead of London. We do not have enough flights to China departing from London and this will slow developing business links between the UK and China. Of course those affected by the runway building need to be consulted and compensated fairly. There is a short term gain, for a long term impact - Environmentally increasing the span and number of flights represents an acceleration of environmental consequences. This aspect has never been addressed, the actual cost of environmental impact isn't factored in to the cost of air travel How is a runway short term gain? Air travel is only going to increase as the global population does. Do it now or do it later when it'll be more expensive. 90% of international freight is done by shipping, airlines are used when speed is of the essence. As in Financial profit now, environmental consequence paid for later (by later generations hopefully). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 27 Nov 15 12.59pm

Quote Stuk at 27 Nov 2015 12.48pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Nov 2015 9.15am

Quote matt_himself at 27 Nov 2015 7.43am

The fact is hat we need more runways for business. If we do not build them, hubs such as Barajas will become increasingly used by the likes of IAG instead of London.

We do not have enough flights to China departing from London and this will slow developing business links between the UK and China.

Of course those affected by the runway building need to be consulted and compensated fairly.

There is a short term gain, for a long term impact - Environmentally increasing the span and number of flights represents an acceleration of environmental consequences. This aspect has never been addressed, the actual cost of environmental impact isn't factored in to the cost of air travel

How is a runway short term gain?

Air travel is only going to increase as the global population does. Do it now or do it later when it'll be more expensive.

90% of international freight is done by shipping, airlines are used when speed is of the essence.

As in Financial profit now, environmental consequence paid for later (by later generations hopefully).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Mr Palaceman 27 Nov 15 12.59pm
Quote nickgusset at 27 Nov 2015 12.46pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Nov 2015 12.12pm Quote Willo at 27 Nov 2015 9.48am Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Nov 2015 9.28am I don't think we need to actually stop air travel, but we do need to rationalise its use in line with environmental realities. I might wrong but I think that 80% of aviation CO2 emissions occur above a height of 1500 KM for which there is no practical alternative forms of transport.And modern aircraft are far more fuel efficient than those of yesteryear. They're still emissions though. What I'm saying is we need to factor in the necessity of air travel and usage over the convenience (and other forms of transport), not cut it out all together. Nor that air travel alone will be sufficient to resolve the problems. If its more emission effective to ship by plane, then we should prioritise towards airshiping over conventional transportation. Some have said (and I paraphrase) sod the environment because of India and China using fossil fuels so what we do makes no difference. In life, we can be like sheep and just follow, because everyone else is doing it or we can do something for ourselves just because it's a good thing to do for our children, regardless. What we do makes a difference to us. "You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead" Stan Laurel
Alert a moderator to this post

Mr Palaceman

27 Nov 15 12.59pm

Quote nickgusset at 27 Nov 2015 12.46pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Nov 2015 12.12pm

Quote Willo at 27 Nov 2015 9.48am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Nov 2015 9.28am

I don't think we need to actually stop air travel, but we do need to rationalise its use in line with environmental realities.

I might wrong but I think that 80% of aviation CO2 emissions occur above a height of 1500 KM for which there is no practical alternative forms of transport.And modern aircraft are far more fuel efficient than those of yesteryear.

They're still emissions though. What I'm saying is we need to factor in the necessity of air travel and usage over the convenience (and other forms of transport), not cut it out all together. Nor that air travel alone will be sufficient to resolve the problems. If its more emission effective to ship by plane, then we should prioritise towards airshiping over conventional transportation.

Some have said (and I paraphrase) sod the environment because of India and China using fossil fuels so what we do makes no difference.

In life, we can be like sheep and just follow, because everyone else is doing it or we can do something for ourselves just because it's a good thing to do for our children, regardless.

What we do makes a difference to us.

"You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead"

Stan Laurel

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Nov 15 1.52pm
Quote nickgusset at 27 Nov 2015 12.46pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Nov 2015 12.12pm Quote Willo at 27 Nov 2015 9.48am Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Nov 2015 9.28am I don't think we need to actually stop air travel, but we do need to rationalise its use in line with environmental realities. I might wrong but I think that 80% of aviation CO2 emissions occur above a height of 1500 KM for which there is no practical alternative forms of transport.And modern aircraft are far more fuel efficient than those of yesteryear. They're still emissions though. What I'm saying is we need to factor in the necessity of air travel and usage over the convenience (and other forms of transport), not cut it out all together. Nor that air travel alone will be sufficient to resolve the problems. If its more emission effective to ship by plane, then we should prioritise towards airshiping over conventional transportation. Some have said (and I paraphrase) sod the environment because of India and China using fossil fuels so what we do makes no difference. There is a truth in this, but ultimately its a justification of not doing anything, because someone else isn't, rather than coming to a solution with those nations that is mutually benefical. Its like the argument for using sweatshop child labour because your competition does, ultimately its a false rationality, the problem isn't really that, its that actually both companies are spending ridiculous amounts of money on marketing budgets and brand positioning, that are covered by the 1500% mark up on production. There is always a solution that can be reached between interested parties, but it probably means giving something of your own benefit away. China has a massive pollution problem largely based around manufacturing for the international market (similarly India), because they can exploit their own people horribly. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 27 Nov 15 1.52pm

Quote nickgusset at 27 Nov 2015 12.46pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Nov 2015 12.12pm

Quote Willo at 27 Nov 2015 9.48am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Nov 2015 9.28am

I don't think we need to actually stop air travel, but we do need to rationalise its use in line with environmental realities.

Some have said (and I paraphrase) sod the environment because of India and China using fossil fuels so what we do makes no difference.

There is a truth in this, but ultimately its a justification of not doing anything, because someone else isn't, rather than coming to a solution with those nations that is mutually benefical.

Its like the argument for using sweatshop child labour because your competition does, ultimately its a false rationality, the problem isn't really that, its that actually both companies are spending ridiculous amounts of money on marketing budgets and brand positioning, that are covered by the 1500% mark up on production.

There is always a solution that can be reached between interested parties, but it probably means giving something of your own benefit away.

China has a massive pollution problem largely based around manufacturing for the international market (similarly India), because they can exploit their own people horribly.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

snytaxx London 27 Nov 15 2.33pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Nov 2015 1.52pm Quote nickgusset at 27 Nov 2015 12.46pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Nov 2015 12.12pm Quote Willo at 27 Nov 2015 9.48am Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Nov 2015 9.28am I don't think we need to actually stop air travel, but we do need to rationalise its use in line with environmental realities. I might wrong but I think that 80% of aviation CO2 emissions occur above a height of 1500 KM for which there is no practical alternative forms of transport.And modern aircraft are far more fuel efficient than those of yesteryear. They're still emissions though. What I'm saying is we need to factor in the necessity of air travel and usage over the convenience (and other forms of transport), not cut it out all together. Nor that air travel alone will be sufficient to resolve the problems. If its more emission effective to ship by plane, then we should prioritise towards airshiping over conventional transportation. Some have said (and I paraphrase) sod the environment because of India and China using fossil fuels so what we do makes no difference. There is a truth in this, but ultimately its a justification of not doing anything, because someone else isn't, rather than coming to a solution with those nations that is mutually benefical. Its like the argument for using sweatshop child labour because your competition does, ultimately its a false rationality, the problem isn't really that, its that actually both companies are spending ridiculous amounts of money on marketing budgets and brand positioning, that are covered by the 1500% mark up on production. There is always a solution that can be reached between interested parties, but it probably means giving something of your own benefit away. China has a massive pollution problem largely based around manufacturing for the international market (similarly India), because they can exploit their own people horribly. China and India are both still developing countries, it therefore makes a large degree of sense for them to generate energy from the cheapest possible methods i.e. fossil fuels. It goes back to the classic argument, save the climate, save the people or save your money. Its pretty difficult to do all three at the same time.
Alert a moderator to this post

snytaxx

London 27 Nov 15 2.33pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Nov 2015 1.52pm

Quote nickgusset at 27 Nov 2015 12.46pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Nov 2015 12.12pm

Quote Willo at 27 Nov 2015 9.48am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Nov 2015 9.28am

I don't think we need to actually stop air travel, but we do need to rationalise its use in line with environmental realities.

Some have said (and I paraphrase) sod the environment because of India and China using fossil fuels so what we do makes no difference.

There is a truth in this, but ultimately its a justification of not doing anything, because someone else isn't, rather than coming to a solution with those nations that is mutually benefical.

There is always a solution that can be reached between interested parties, but it probably means giving something of your own benefit away.

China has a massive pollution problem largely based around manufacturing for the international market (similarly India), because they can exploit their own people horribly.

China and India are both still developing countries, it therefore makes a large degree of sense for them to generate energy from the cheapest possible methods i.e. fossil fuels.

It goes back to the classic argument, save the climate, save the people or save your money. Its pretty difficult to do all three at the same time.

Alert a moderator to this post

stuckinbristol In the woodwork. 27 Nov 15 4.58pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Nov 2015 9.13am Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 26 Nov 2015 10.55pm I would be mightily pissed off if I'd missed a flight but it's hard not to sympathise with the protesters at least a little bit. Whole villages destroyed, people losing homes they've lived in for decades. It is not particularly pleasant. That said we need to expand our capacity so someone somewhere is going to get the s* end of the stick. They're environmental protestors**, and air travel is a massive contributor to pollution / climate change and environmental damage, so arguably they may have a very reasonable cause (given the consequences and necessity to the future of the species' environment). Hmm, they seem to have an old battered Transit, that I bet is a Diesel, pumping out loads of horrible particulates, and causing a massive traffic jam, where people are sat with their engines running...the irony!!
Alert a moderator to this post

stuckinbristol

In the woodwork. 27 Nov 15 4.58pm

Send a Private Message to stuckinbristol

Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Nov 2015 9.13am

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 26 Nov 2015 10.55pm

I would be mightily pissed off if I'd missed a flight but it's hard not to sympathise with the protesters at least a little bit. Whole villages destroyed, people losing homes they've lived in for decades. It is not particularly pleasant.

That said we need to expand our capacity so someone somewhere is going to get the s*** end of the stick.

They're environmental protestors, and air travel is a massive contributor to pollution / climate change and environmental damage, so arguably they may have a very reasonable cause (given the consequences and necessity to the future of the species' environment).

Hmm, they seem to have an old battered Transit, that I bet is a Diesel, pumping out loads of horrible particulates, and causing a massive traffic jam, where people are sat with their engines running...the irony!!

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 4 of 4 << First < 1 2 3 4

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Heathrow Protest

Site Map

Sponsors